[OLPC-devel] Why ACPI DSDT tables?

[Ronald G Minnich]

David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 17:30 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
>>Skimming the developers list I caught a reference to ACPI DSDT tables.  
>>Unless my memory fails me the DSDT tables require interpretation of AML,
>>and the AML interpreter in the kernel is big (64K+ last time I
>>checked).  With 128MB of RAM it is a cost that can be paid but at
>>the same time I think it is expensive enough that if we can avoid them
>>it gives more memory to other parts of the system.
>>
>>So what is the reason for wanting an ACPI DSDT? 
> 
> 
> I can't think of any reason why we'd want something like ACPI. We have
> proper hardware documentation -- we don't have to be reduced to that
> kind of abomination.
> 

well, sold, if it's just me talking. I hate ACPI. But I was told a while 
back we had to have it.

ron